Metrolink Second City Crossing

[WatcherZero]

One reason for its new uncertainty may well be its possible future as a shared alignment for trams and trains as opposed to existing single line segregation, which would require a common signalling system to be used.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think any change to the Network Rail signalling would involve rework of the (25 year old) safety case for the two level crossings. Since these also carry the Stockport-Chester heavy rail line, they have to comply with the onerous safety requirements for heavy rail crossings - the signals must be interlocked so that they clear only when the barriers are down and the crossing is confirmed clear of road vehicles and pedestrians. NR gets a lot of flak over level crossing safety, so is likely to take a cautious approach. Also it is reportedly strapped for signalling design resource.

I presume TfGM would have to fund the NR work. So perhaps it will be cheaper to keep a sub-fleet of ATS-fitted trams, at least until signalling changes are required anyway for the (2019?) migration from the Deansgate Junction signal box to the Manchester Rail Operating Centre (ROC) at Ashburys, and/or for tram-trains to share the heavy rail line.

 

[WatcherZero]

ITT's for next operator will be issued 2nd Feb there are currently four shortlisted bidders, Keolis Amey, Transdev, RATP (existing operator) and a consortium led by National express including MJ Quinn, Bombardier and Stobart (which would likely mean National Express as Money/management, MJ Quinn as infrastructure maintenance, Bombardier as vehicles maintenance and Stobart as staffing/operations).

Service pattern operators will be asked to bid for is a 6 minute peak (up to 8pm each day except Sundays)/12 minute offpeak service to all destinations except Rochdale, Eccles, MediaCity and Trafford Centre which will remain 12 minute (that means doubled frequency to Ashton, Airport and East Didsbury).

Greater frequency means less doubles will operate but they are working up a business plan for more tram orders to allow more doubled up services.

 

[snowball]

Further to the recent discussion of Metrolink routes after the opening of 2CC, richardio123 has posted this on Skyscrapercity:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=130010463&postcount=41947

 

[radamfi]

Further to the recent discussion of Metrolink routes after the opening of 2CC, richardio123 has posted this on Skyscrapercity:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=130010463&postcount=41947

Well, that is a surprise. I didn't expect the Bury - Altrincham and Rochdale - East Didsbury lines to go via Exchange Square, meaning that there is only one tram every 12 minutes from Market Street to St Peter's Square. But that is probably necessary because of the increased frequency between Ashton and St Peter's Square.

 

[rebmcr]

Also it appears there will be an Ashton-Eccles direct service and an Ashton-MCUK service during daytime, which folds down into an Ashton-MCUK-Eccles service early/late and Sundays.

 

[freetoview33]

Is there benefits of the enhanced services following the exact same route as the normal routes. (All except one)

 

[edwin_m]

Is there benefits of the enhanced services following the exact same route as the normal routes. (All except one)

If alternate services switched routes it would be more difficult to keep regular intervals. Keeping them on the same route also minimises the risk of transferring delays from one route to another.

 

[miami]

That will be 1 tram every 40 seconds passing over the A34/Oxford Street? And I think it's still going to be two platforms at Cornbrook, and with 45tph on each track isn't it going to be a bottleneck for any post-Trafford-Centre expansion?

 

[freetoview33]

That will be 1 tram every 40 seconds passing over the A34/Oxford Street? And I think it's still going to be two platforms at Cornbrook, and with 45tph on each track isn't it going to be a bottleneck for any post-Trafford-Centre expansion?

I still think it will be pushing it with the Trafford Centre expansion! But I don't personally see any further expansion of lines going through Cornbrook.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe an extension from Ashton-under-Lyme to Stalybridge and Droylsden to Denton and Hyde. Then there could be a Hyde to Bury service taking over the Hyde to Piccaddily service

 

[miami]

I still think it will be pushing it with the Trafford Centre expansion! But I don't personally see any further expansion of lines going through Cornbrook.

If the Trafford park line is succesfull and they decided to up it to 10tph?

Eccles could fork to Swinton/Pendlebury via Salford Crescent, Barton, Worsley and Ellenbrook could fork off the trafford park line at Trafford Centre

 

[edwin_m]

That will be 1 tram every 40 seconds passing over the A34/Oxford Street? And I think it's still going to be two platforms at Cornbrook, and with 45tph on each track isn't it going to be a bottleneck for any post-Trafford-Centre expansion?

One tram every 40s is about the limit for on-street operation which crosses roads but doesn't share with other traffic, see for example Kaiserstrasse in Karlsruhe. At Oxford Street there will be two tracks for trams coming from Deansgate-Castlefield, so there is a possibility of two trams in the same direction crossing the street alongside each other! I've a suspicion this might be banned though, in case a pedestrian makes a dash across in front of an approaching tram and finds themselves in the path of another one.

The double track between Deansgate-Castlefield and Cornbrook is less of a constraint, because it is fully segregated from other users. The constraint here is dwell time at stops, and at least one tram every 30s should be possible.

 

[freetoview33]

If the Trafford park line is succesfull and they decided to up it to 10tph?

Eccles could fork to Swinton/Pendlebury via Salford Crescent, Barton, Worsley and Ellenbrook could fork off the trafford park line at Trafford Centre

Agreed about the Trafford Park line could go to 10tph.

But Any further expansion south would require massive rebuilding on the line through cornbrook, which surely wouldn't be practical. Plus where would all these trams go to if the majority of termini are in the South?

Surely they could find a point for a new line to come off north of Victoria. To Swinton/Pendlebury/Ellenbrook and Bolton. Although I admit I don't know the area but it would seem easier then the Manchester Airport line could just be extended without the need to find extra capacity through the very crowded middle section. 2CC will be very crowded. Yes a bit of spare capacity for trams via Market street. But that could be taken if a route to Stockport ever happened it might have to branch off from Piccadilly (Instead of from East Didsbury) Maybe tram/trains?

Then surely Manchester Metrolink would be completed (Unless orbital routes ever happened ect)

I may be barking up the wrong tree totally but it's the only way I can see it working.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Surely they could find a point for a new line to come off north of Victoria. To Swinton/Pendlebury/Ellenbrook and Bolton.

Has not the original railway line route through Ellenbrook been recently used for the line of the Leigh Guided Busway?

 

[freetoview33]

Has not the original railway line route through Ellenbrook been recently used for the line of the Leigh Guided Busway?

Some of it has. But a lot of it is just a bus lane down the dual carriageway

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Some of it has. But a lot of it is just a bus lane down the dual carriageway

Perhaps we are cross purposes here. I was making reference to the original rail route that ran through Ellenbrook, not any road system.

 

[freetoview33]

Perhaps we are cross purposes here. I was making reference to the original rail route that ran through Ellenbrook, not any road system.

A big part of the guided bus way will run on roads, only a small overall part will use the original rail route through Ellenbrook.

 

[mic]

tram 3108 now in service i think there is 3109 to 3120 left to come

 

[familyguy99]

tram 3108 now in service i think there is 3109 to 3120 left to come

3109 have already arrived and entry into services mean 11 more M5000 trams to come.

 

[mic]

3109 have already arrived and entry into services mean 10 more M5000 trams to come.

i looked at list after i had posted this and saw 3109 in was in use

 

[Altfish]

3109 have already arrived and entry into services mean 10 more M5000 trams to come.

Pedantic comment I know, but shouldn't that be 11 to come?

 

[familyguy99]

Pedantic comment I know, but shouldn't that be 11 to come?

Yes you right I was somereason counting it from 3111 then 3110 tram.

 

[Altfish]

Yes you right I was somereason counting it from 3111 then 3110 tram.

Mind you, I understand that 3110 has arrived and is at Queen's Road depot undergoing commissioning. So there is only 10 to come now

 

[Greybeard33]

I think any change to the Network Rail signalling would involve rework of the (25 year old) safety case for the two level crossings. Since these also carry the Stockport-Chester heavy rail line, they have to comply with the onerous safety requirements for heavy rail crossings - the signals must be interlocked so that they clear only when the barriers are down and the crossing is confirmed clear of road vehicles and pedestrians. NR gets a lot of flak over level crossing safety, so is likely to take a cautious approach. Also it is reportedly strapped for signalling design resource.

I presume TfGM would have to fund the NR work. So perhaps it will be cheaper to keep a sub-fleet of ATS-fitted trams, at least until signalling changes are required anyway for the (2019?) migration from the Deansgate Junction signal box to the Manchester Rail Operating Centre (ROC) at Ashburys, and/or for tram-trains to share the heavy rail line.

The new TfGMC Metrolink Capital Update has now clarified the intention for Timperley to Altrincham TMS migration:

Timperley to Altrincham migration will be the final phase of the TMS Phase
3 programme of works and the final commissioning is planned for
Quarter 2 2016. The migration to TMS control is only up to the
boundary with Network Rail and trams will continue to operate under
Network Rail control beyond this point. The tram location system will be
installed on Network Rail assets to enable tram tracking and the
commissioning of the Passenger Information Displays at Timperley,
Navigation Road and Altrincham Stops.

I think this implies that the NR colour light block signals, ATS beacons and VRS loops will remain unchanged. Consequently TfGM will have to retain a sub-fleet of ATS/VRS-equipped trams for services to Altrincham (although maybe fewer needed after the Bury line migration is completed).

 

[edwin_m]

The new TfGMC Metrolink Capital Update has now clarified the intention for Timperley to Altrincham TMS migration:

I think this implies that the NR colour light block signals, ATS beacons and VRS loops will remain unchanged. Consequently TfGM will have to retain a sub-fleet of ATS/VRS-equipped trams for services to Altrincham (although maybe fewer needed after the Bury line migration is completed).

They may seek to produce a safety justification for removing the ATS equipment, on the grounds that Metrolink appears to operate perfectly safely without it everywhere else.

 

[Altfish]

The fact that both level crossings are on the single track section means that the section needs to be signal controlled anyway. But I would have thought that LOS would be fine once the driver had obeyed the signal since the signals require the crossing to be closed for road traffic to be put to green.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since this thread is about the Second City Crossing, I might as well mention that the John Dalton Street/ Princess Street junction is scheduled to reconstruct the level of the road with the tram tracks there.

A four-week period from 1st February has been scheduled for these works.

 

[Greybeard33]

They may seek to produce a safety justification for removing the ATS equipment, on the grounds that Metrolink appears to operate perfectly safely without it everywhere else.

The fact that both level crossings are on the single track section means that the section needs to be signal controlled anyway. But I would have thought that LOS would be fine once the driver had obeyed the signal since the signals require the crossing to be closed for road traffic to be put to green.

Elsewhere on the segregated parts of the network, including the single line sections at Newton Heath and Newbold, TMS-signalled junctions are equipped with flashing blue Signal Passed At Stop (SPAS) lights, to alert all drivers in the area to a potential conflict. In some cases, e.g. Cornbrook, lower speed restrictions were introduced when junctions were migrated from block signalling (with ATS) to TMS signalling, because of poor lines of sight between the conflicting tracks.

If such measures were planned for Deansgate Junction and Navigation Road, involving changes to the interfaces with the Network Rail SSI, I would have expected the Capital Update report to mention them.

 

[mic]

when will st peters square be fully open again

 

[Greybeard33]

when will st peters square be fully open again

The St Peters Square stop is scheduled to reopen, for the 1CC line only, by the end of August 2016. There will be an 8-week blockade during July and August, similar to last year, to connect the lines through the new platforms in place of the temporary single line. The 2CC line between St Peters Square and Exchange Square is scheduled to open in 2017 - I do not think a date has been announced yet.